Prosecutors may have won an important victory with this week's court
ruling that Martha Moxley murder defendant Michael Skakel will be tried as
an adult, but they can expect to run into fierce resistance long before
the first witness gets sworn in.

It is widely expected that Skakel's defense team will fire the opening
volley with an appeal of the ruling transferring his case from juvenile to
adult court, and then vigorously challenge the state every step of the way
in an arduous pretrial process.

Skakel, 40, was 15 at the time of the murder. He was arraigned last
year as a juvenile, but a judge on Wednesday transferred the case to adult
court.

As indications of potential conflict, court observers and legal experts
with intimate knowledge of Skakel's case pointed to the hard-fought
battles over legal issues raised during the grand jury process that
brought Skakel to where he is today.

Among those issues were questions of admissibility of evidence of
claimed privileged statements and records, and the competency of witnesses
to testify.

"I think all those issues remain alive," said Stamford attorney Emanuel
Margolis. "They can all be revisited de novo by the defense."

Margolis has followed Skakel's case more closely than most, as he has
represented Skakel's older brother Thomas, once the prime suspect in the
Moxley murder, since 1976.

During the grand jury investigation that began in 1998 and concluded
early the following year with Michael Skakel's arrest, Skakel's defense
challenged the admissibility of such evidence as the testimony of
witnesses who were in a substance abuse rehabilitation center with the
defendant when Skakel allegedly confessed to murdering Moxley on Oct. 30,
1975.

Even though the defense lost those contests, Margolis said, the issues
at the time were viewed in the context of the grand jury and not a jury
trial, where rules of evidence are more stringent.

Stamford criminal defense attorney Matthew Maddox agreed that the
Skakel case will soon give observers a sense of dŽjˆ vu as it proceeds to
trial.

"I think it would be virtually reckless not to exhaust every issue
again, and knowing the way (Skakel's) defense attorney handles cases,"
Maddox said, "I would be very surprised not to see him revisit and
re-litigate every issue if for no other reason - particularly in a case of
this magnitude and notoriety - than because he is very mindful of the
record that's being kept for purposes of appeal."

Another grand jury issue expected to recur prior to trial is the
admissibility of testimony and records of private investigators hired, to
whom Skakel allegedly admitted having lied to police in 1975.

Another point of contention could be whether the defendant's elderly
father, Rushton Skakel Sr., has been rendered an incompetent witness by
illness and psychological disorders.

Skakel's defense attorney, Michael Sherman, said he would not disclose
his defense strategy.

"I'm not going to comment on what motions I'm filing until I do it," he
said.

Sherman also said he did not know yet if he would appeal the judge's
ruling that sent Skakel's case to adult court.

There remains the question of whether or not the transfer of the case
from one court to another is even an appealable issue.

According to Deputy Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano, the law
as it existed in 1975 - and the law that has governed the prosecution of
this case from the beginning - did not allow for the appeal of such
transfers.

Even so, some say, that will probably not deter Sherman.

"You have to at least try, and if the appeal is denied, then that
denial itself can become an appealable issue," Margolis said.

According to attorneys on both sides, the case is expected to proceed
as follows:

¥ Within the next two weeks, Skakel will be presented in Part B of
state Superior Court in Stamford. This is the point at which Skakel's case
is officially entered into the adult court record, and when the issue of
bail can be discussed and Sherman will file his appearance as Skakel's
attorney of record. The case will then be transferred to the court's Part
A, which handles all serious felony prosecutions.

¥ A probable cause hearing will be held in which a judge will determine
whether the state's case is sufficient to warrant a trial. This hearing
must occur within 60 days of Skakel's presentment. Often a formality
waived by the defense, Sherman indicated he wants a probable cause hearing
so he can have the opportunity to contest the state's evidence.

¥ If probable cause is found, Skakel will be asked to enter a plea of
guilty or not guilty. If he pleads not guilty, the matter will be
scheduled for pretrial hearings.

Sherman said if there were to be a trial, he expected it would begin in
six to 10 months.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.